European Jews are more concerned about a demographic decline today compared to the previous survey, and believe that mixed marriages pose one of the gravest threats to the community - yet when they are asked which action-items should be prioritized by the community, they rank “developing an effective policy on intermarriage” as last on their list. Does this make sense?‎

Well Jewish leaders are no more bound to be logical or consistent than other people. ‎But I think this gap indicates their difficulty in dealing with the divisive social issues ‎that arise from intermarriage such as Jewish status questions and the education of ‎children of intermarriages. ‎

‎The obvious and logical policy response to demographic decline is more emphasis ‎on retention and recruitment. Yet if the cause of the loss is mainly due to ‎intermarriage, then this raises other divisive communal issues that produce ‎denominational tensions.‎

‎So the real problem is ambivalence about “developing effective policy.” Most of ‎these countries have an established Orthodox rabbinate which will not sacrifice ‎Halakhic norms for positive demographic solutions. So in order to avoid a ‎Kulturkampf, which will split their communities, the leaders tend to flag the problem ‎as demographic and reluctantly admit there is no viable, pluralistic consensus ‎solution worth considering.
‎

‎Supporting the State of Israel also doesn’t rank very high on the list ‎- but 84% of West-European respondents think that Israel is “critical to sustaining Jewish life in Europe”. So why not make it a higher priority?‎

Again the answer is the leaders’ ambivalence and caution. Israel involvement on the ‎political and personal levels is an important aspect of European Jewish life today but ‎again it is a divisive issue – not only about the peace process but also regarding the ‎power of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the Orthodox religious establishment. The ‎responses show that there is an acknowledgement that the community leaders do not ‎have the power to do much to influence Israeli Government policies or local reactions ‎to it by Jews or gentiles. ‎

As leaders their policy priorities lie in areas where they have executive authority to ‎influence outcomes so their responses are quite realistic.
‎

Judging by your study, is seems quite strange to ask Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans the same questions. The answers are so different - and I’d be happy if you can highlight some such differences – so why do these two ‎groups share the same study?‎

I don’t accept this assessment. In fact the differences between East and West on ‎most issues are not large and the gap is narrowing. The great value of creating a time ‎series such as this survey is that one can see how differences change over time.‎

One particular issue that is of historical significance in the European context is that ‎leaders in Western Europe are more concerned about rising anti-Semitism than those ‎in the East. This is related to the presence of more Muslims in Western Europe. This ‎in turn ties into the Israel question. Currently Easterners are less critical and more ‎enthusiastic in their support than Westerners. This is probably related to the lower ‎level of anti-Israel sentiment in the media and public life in the former Eastern bloc.‎

Another interesting phenomenon is that the Easterners seem to becoming a little ‎more traditional and Westerners are becoming more secular so that again the ‎regional differences are eroding.
‎
‎You didn’t ask a question about Jewish European view of the American Jewish community - why?‎

This survey was about practical issues that impinge on the community life in Europe ‎and assessments of policy options. So views about American Jews are irrelevant to ‎its aims. Moreover many Europeans do not know much about the American ‎community as they may not have visited it. The same would go in reverse for asking ‎American Jewish leaders about Europe.
‎

You have very few Haredi respondents - is it because they were not cooperative, because you didn’t think it’s important, or for another reason? And how ‎does such an absence impact the outcome of the study?‎

Well there are not large numbers of Haredim in Europe today especially in the ‎category of “leaders and opinion formers.” ‎

The medium is also the message. This was an on-line survey and many Haredim have ‎reservations about using the internet. ‎

Finally, the opinions of Haredim on most of the issues we surveyed are well-known ‎and fixed. Moreover they are a hierarchical group and my experience is that they will ‎advise any investigator to talk to their Rebbe for an authoritative answer.
‎

If the community needs changing, what could be the “drivers of change” that respondents specify, and do you think their choice of drivers makes sense?‎

Some drivers of change are beyond the power of local leaders to influence e.g. the ‎national economy. One feature of life today is mobility. Young Jews move around ‎from region to region or across borders for study and jobs. The young also adopt ‎new ideas and technologies faster than others. The leaders also value the role and ‎efficacy of institutions to effect Jewish social life. ‎

This is perhaps why the respondents distinguished groups of people as the drivers ‎of change – the lay leadership, the professional leadership and young people in that ‎order.‎

‎Reading this survey one wonders: Should anyone be investing in such a declining Jewish community - would it not be better to just be blunt about it and tell ‎Jews that there seems to be no future for Jews in Europe? ‎

This is a very provocative statement. Outside financial investment is minimal these ‎days except for support of the elderly poor Shoah survivors. Personally I’m reluctant ‎to tell over one million Jews in 32 countries what they should or should not do. Now ‎that the totalitarian regimes have been displaced they are free citizens and capable ‎of deciding for themselves where they want to live. ‎

Moreover it is very dangerous to suggest that areas of the world – cities like Paris, ‎London, Rome or Budapest with large and historic Jewish communities - should be ‎Judenrein. In the U.S., communities like Detroit and Cleveland have smaller Jewish ‎populations and are also in numerical decline but I doubt you would make the same ‎argument about abandoning them. ‎

The point is that numbers are not everything in Jewish life today. Obviously there is a ‎certain point at which size matters for viability in terms of membership and ‎audiences. However, there is a visible Jewish cultural revival in Europe as in the U.S. ‎‎– books, films, art, publications, festivals of all kind and of course Jewish education ‎of all types.‎

When it comes to considering the impact of numbers you should bear in mind that ‎the small community of Troyes in France with less than 100 Jews produced Rashi ‎and that Vilna – the Jerusalem of Lithuania - in its heyday had a Jewish population of ‎only 60,000. ‎

There is also a political or diplomatic value in having Jewish communities in lots of ‎countries who as constituents and citizens can voice Jewish concerns to their ‎nations’ political leaders e.g. on the Middle East.‎

Categories

Email Newsletter Sign Up

Don’t miss any of the latest news and events!
Get the Jewish Journal in your inbox.

JewishJournal.com is produced by TRIBE Media Corp., a non-profit media company whose mission is to inform, connect and enlighten community
through independent journalism. TRIBE Media produces the 150,000-reader print weekly Jewish Journal in Los Angeles – the largest Jewish print
weekly in the West – and the monthly glossy Tribe magazine (TribeJournal.com). Please support us by clicking here.